Are Streaming Services Broadcasters?

Traditionally, the consumption of media content was primarily carried out through television and radio. This has changed with the internet. In today’s day and age, internet content streaming services have taken over the market and changed the way in which content is consumed by the public.

While the developments in technology have made life more convenient for the consumers, the laws governing such content are not clear with respect to the use of such content. This can be seen in the conflict that arose between Spotify and Warner Chapple Music Ltd. (WMC).

Spotify is a company that provides an audio streaming services around the globe. While Warner Chapple Music Ltd. is a Music record label that produces and licenses out music.

As Spotify provides an audio streaming service, it licenses music and other sound recordings from the owners of the copyright. In this case the record labels or the production houses. Once they have licensed out their Musical works, Spotify can upload the works on their application for its users.

Spotify wished to enter the Indian market and thus wished to acquire the licenses form record labels and production houses, in order to stream their music on its app. While doing so, they had a conflict with the WMC and thus a license agreement could not be reached upon.

Though Spotify did not have an agreement with WMC, they launched their application in India and provided their users access to the songs by WMC. WMC had issued an objection against the same, still Spotify went ahead made WMC’s music available to its users. Though not all WMC’s songs were being streamed many of them were available to the users1.

The conflict had grown when Spotify made its intentions clear to invoke the Statutory licensing provision given in the Copyrights Act under section 31D. On the 25th of February 2019, Spotify issued a notice to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) stating that it was invoking the statutory

licensing provisions given under section 31D of the Act as it is an internet broadcaster and intended to broadcast the same. Spotify supported its claim of being a broadcaster through an Office Memorandum issued by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP).

Spotify launched their service and enforced the statutory license on the 26th of February 2019. However, there was an issue in the enforced statutory agreement i.e. the IPAB had not fixed any royalty rates for the statutory license to be enforced2.

Section 31D allows broadcasters to communicate to the public any ‘previously published’ musical work or sound recording. They can do so by invoking compulsory licensing through a unilateral notice i.e. the party intending to use the work shall inform the owner of the copyright that they intend to broadcast their work. The provision also directs the parties that the license would be enforceable after the IPAB fixes the royalty rates3.

However, as the royalty rates have not been fixed by the IPAB for either radio, television or even internet broadcasters with respect to statutory licenses, there is no clarity that the move by Spotify to not wait for the IPAB to fix the rates and launch their services with the musical works of WMC was authorised.

WMC responded to the notice for statutory licensing and anticipated infringement of their copyrights by suing Spotify and applied for a petition seeking injunction against their music being streamed on the app.

The Bombay High Court issued an order where, Spotify was asked deposit a sum rupees six crores fifty lakhs with the high court, they were directed to do so without any justification. The court also directed them to not enforce the statutory license till the time the IPAB fixed the royalty rates. But did not prohibit Spotify, from using WCM’s catalogue of musical works, subject to the remuneration being offset upon the final disposition of the suit.

On one hand, if the legislative intent of section 31D of the Copyrights act were to be understood, it was put in place with the view of television and radio broadcasting4. However, the Office Memorandum issued by the DIPP brought internet streaming services under the purview of being broadcasters5.

As both the companies wish to continue their business relations this matter would be in most likelihood be resolved by negotiations. However, it would be interesting to know what could happen if the courts were to give a judgement on the issue6.

If the court went in favour of Spotify, all internet audio streaming services would be become as broadcasters and could therefore apply for statutory licenses. At the same time, it would mean that the DIPP has substantial powers with regards to the interpretation of copyright laws. As well as, WMC would have to allow Spotify to use their musical works on their application.

If the courts were to go in favour of WMC, internet streaming services would not come under the purview of being a broadcaster and the Office Memorandum issued by the DIPP would become invalid. Spotify would have to remove the music catalogue belonging to WMC and proceed to negotiate a voluntary licensing agreement in order to stream WMC’s music.

A judgement to this case would have a long-lasting effect on the copyright laws in India. It would answer the questions whether a streaming service is a broadcaster. It would ascertain the power of DIPP. Most importantly, it would give a clear picture as to how a statutory license is to be enforced in an authorised manner.

Author: Aditya Vaidya , student of BBA LL.B(Hons.) from Alliance school of law, Alliance University, Intern at Khurana and Khurana Advocates and IP Attorneys and can be reached at


[1]Intellectual Property Right. (2018). In: Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd ed. [online] Available at:[Accessed 5 May 2018]

[2]The Copyright Act 1957, s 13(1)

[3]Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd ed.

[4] PTI, ‘Indian Film and TV Industry Threatened by Online Piracy’ The Hindu(Mumbai, 16 december 2009)

[5]Arul George Scaria, Piracy in the Indian Film Industry: Copyright and Cultural Consonance ( 1st ed., Cambridge University Press 2014)

[6]Prasar Bharti v. Tam Media [2012] CCI 32

[7]The Copyright Act 1957The Copyrights Act, 1957

[8]Copyrights and industrial Designs by P. Narayana.





Leave a Reply


  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010